Watson v. County of Yavapai

United States District Court, D. Arizona

March 7, 2017

Theresa Watson, et al., Plaintiffs,v.County of Yavapai, Defendant.

ORDER

Neil
V. Wake Senior United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs
Theresa and Thomas Watson sued Theresa Watson's former
employer, defendant Yavapai County (“the
County”), alleging various injuries under the Family
Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On
June 30, 2016, this Court granted summary judgment on all
counts in favor of the County. Watson v. Yavapai
County, No. CV-14-08228-PCT-NVW, 2016 WL 3548765, at *1
(D. Ariz. June 30, 2016). Now before the Court is the
County's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non-Taxable
Costs (Doc. 66), the response (Doc. 67), and the reply (Doc.
69).

I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The
summary judgment order in this case (Doc. 63) states all the
underlying facts. While familiarity with that order is
assumed here, the following material facts are reiterated for
ease of reference.

A.
Pre-Litigation

In
2004, four years after beginning work at the Yavapai County
Assessor's Office, Theresa Watson (“Watson”)
injured her back and neck in a car accident. Pain has plagued
her on and off ever since. From 2005 through 2013, she
received periodic physician recommendations that she work
less and take stretch breaks at varying intervals in order to
manage her condition. Watson accordingly submitted to the
County a number of workplace accommodation requests during
this time seeking, among other things, adjustments to her
break intervals and permission to work from home several days
per week. The County granted all her requests.

In
February of 2013, Watson's supervisor, Yavapai County
Assessor Pam Pearsall, formally disciplined Watson for
deliberately skipping a professional workshop she had
requested to attend. That was not her first work-related
scrape. Since at least 2009, Pearsall received numerous
complaints about Watson's negative comments made to
coworkers. A month after receiving formal discipline,
however, Watson began taking Family Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”) leave due to increased back pain. Upon
returning to work from her first stint away, she submitted a
fourteen-paragraph letter to the County's human resources
department accusing Pearsall of pervasive workplace hostility
toward her. Buried among the mostly conclusory, ad hominem
attacks was a single accusation that Pearsall had threatened
to demote her because of her disability accommodations under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Pearsall responded by scheduling daily meetings with Watson
to provide direction and to adjust her accommodations as
necessary.

For the
next two months, Pearsall met with Watson regularly and
tweaked her accommodation several times in response to
recommendations from Watson's doctor. One day late in
April, however, Watson and Pearsall hit an impasse over
permissible bathroom break intervals, to which Watson
responded by interrogating her coworkers about their bathroom
use, submitting a complaint letter to Pearsall, and refusing
to participate in further daily meetings. The next day Watson
received a “Final Written Warning” admonishing
her for all of these things, as well as for making personal
phone calls during work. At a subsequent performance
evaluation, Pearsall described Watson as “often
unpleasant when dealing with others, ” prone to
submitting “accusatory” notes to her supervisors,
“spread[ing] misunderstood events to coworkers thus
creating negative work environments all around her, ”
“not interact[ing] in a professional and courteous
manner at all times, ” and “not readily
accept[ing] responsibility for her inappropriate
behavior.” (Doc. 48-2 at 55-56.) Watson received a
verbal warning a few days later for similar behavior,
including not engaging in conversation during her daily
accommodation meetings and using office printers for personal
use.

Unsatisfied
with the County's break schedule accommodations (to which
she had previously assented), Watson wrote a flurry of
complaint letters over the course of the next month filled
with accusations of malice. Among other examples, she cited
Pearsall's failure to give her full and unfettered
discretion over her break schedule. By the middle of May, the
County Assessor's Office initiated proceedings to
terminate Watson by giving her an official notice with a
statement of facts, citing that she was insubordinate,
displayed a negative attitude, made unwarranted demands, and
failed to appropriately respond to reasonable directives.
Watson was given several days' notice to attend a
pre-action meeting but insisted she could not attend because
of her husband's chemotherapy treatment. She then asked
for FMLA or paid leave on the date of the meeting, which was
denied. She was terminated from her position.

Watson
appealed her suspension and termination to the Yavapai County
Employees' Merit System Commission, which, after a full
hearing, determined that the actions taken against her were
“not arbitrary or capricious.” (Doc. 48-3 at
30-31.) After being denied unemployment benefits, too, Watson
appealed to the Arizona Department of Economic Security,
which upheld the denial on grounds that she was fired for
“misconduct.” (Doc. 48-3 at 33-40.) Watson
subsequently filed this action against the County.

B.
Litigation

Watson
filed her complaint on November 25, 2014, alleging
interference and retaliation under the FMLA, and
discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. (Doc. 1.) For
ADA discrimination, she asserted that the County
“fail[ed] to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation, fail[ed] to engage in the interactive process,
and terminated her due to her disabilities and
complaints.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 102.) The County denied
all allegations of wrongdoing and made an offer of judgment
in the amount of $50. (Doc. 65 at 6.) Watson filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2015, with essentially the same
allegations. (Doc. 26.) Extensive discovery ensued. This
Court granted summary judgment in favor of the County in June
2016. The County now moves for attorneys' fees against
Watson.

II.
LEGAL STANDARDS

The ADA
provides:

In any action or administrative proceeding commenced pursuant
to this chapter, the court or agency, in its discretion, may
allow the prevailing part]y, other than the United States, a
reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses,
and costs, and the United States ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.